Attached to this email and in text below are the Comments of the Internet Governance Project (IGP) on the Further Notice of Inquiry on the IANA functions

Milton L Mueller

--------

The Internet Governance Project (IGP) is an alliance of independent academic experts on Internet governance issues. IGP appreciated the NTIA's initiative in organizing a comprehensive review of the IANA functions contract. The questions posed in the original NOI were important and stimulated a valuable round of comments and advice. With the release of the Further Notice of Inquiry (FNOI), however, we were unpleasantly surprised by several items in the proposed Statement of Work (SOW). The FNOI contains proposals for major changes that have no basis in the public comments or in the original set of questions in the NOI.

There are elements in the proposed SOW which could radically alter the nature of the IANA functions contract. Historically, the IANA contract has been a minimal framework for the supervision and auditing of changes to the DNS root in order to ensure neutrality, transparency and accountability. The IANA contract has never been - and must not become - a mechanism by which the U.S. government attempts to influence or second-guess the policies developed by ICANN.

Section C.2.2.1.3.2 of the proposed SOW, however, seems to threaten this principle. In it, the NTIA proposes to require ICANN to document, for each new gTLD it wants to enter into the root, that the proposed gTLD string enjoys "consensus support" and is "in the public interest." Apparently, the IANA is supposed to make a determination that any new gTLD enjoys consensus support and is in the public interest before it can enter the new string into the DNS root. Note that this review would come after the ICANN Board had already approved a TLD and sent it on the IANA for entry into the root. Note also that ICANN's elaborate policy for approving a new gTLD does not require global consensus on a gTLD string, nor does it require that new strings make a public interest showing. Indeed, ICANN's policy nowhere defines the global public interest or any metric for assessing TLD applications against a public interest standard. What criteria, then, would IANA use to determine whether a public interest showing had been met? How could IANA make such a determination without also making policy?

We view C.2.2.1.3.2 as a dramatic transformation of the IANA function, one that is unwelcome, unsupported by public comment and dangerous. NTIA seems to be asking the IANA to second-guess the ICANN Board's decision to approve a new gTLD. Both of these documentation requirements would put the IANA in a position to veto the creation of a new TLD after it has been approved by the ICANN Board. This creates unwholesome incentives for industry players or political interests who might oppose the creation of a specific gTLD to lobby the IANA in an attempt to influence the outcome of its consensus and public interest determinations.

We note with some relief that it is possible that the wording of Section C.2.2.1.3.2 is a product of confusion or unintentional error. The objectionable proposal comes in the context of NTIA's discussion of Question 3 in the February 2011 Notice of Inquiry. Question 3 pertained specifically to "root zone management requests for country code TLDs (ccTLDs)" (our emphasis). And yet in the FNOI, NTIA has used responses to Question 3 as the basis for establishing new requirements for IANA's delegation of new generic TLD names (gTLDs) as well. Indeed, the whole discussion mixes up gTLD and ccTLD issues in a confusing manner. In the case of ccTLDs, it may make sense for IANA to ascertain whether a new delegation or a re-delegation enjoys consensus support among the parties involved, and serves the local and global public interest (as RFC 1591 vaguely suggests it should). It makes no sense, however, for newly approved gTLDs, which will have already passed through an elaborate, expensive process ensuring conformity to ICANN policies, to go through such a review at the hands of the IANA. We hope the NTIA can clarify whether it has confused the criteria that should be applied to the delegation or re-delegation of ccTLDs with the criteria that should be applied to the delegation of new gTLDs.

We were also surprised by NTIA's decision to include in the IANA contract a provision that gives NTIA authority over who ICANN hires as a security director. We saw no question in the original NOI about this topic, and found in the public record no comments by any participants specifically requesting it.

IGP however does strongly support the NTIA's proposal to completely separate the IANA functions staff from any policy development related to the performance of the IANA functions. We think such a separation would help to maintain the independence and neutrality of the IANA. The IANA staff should not develop policies, lead policy development processes, or make policy decisions in the course of performing the IANA functions. We do not think such a separation would prevent IANA staff from being asked factual questions about their activities by other parties involved in policy development.

Attn: Fiona M. Alexander, Associate Administrator,
Office of International Affairs,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce

On behalf of the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number, Generic Names Supporting Organization, attached please find the comments (pdf format) of the Stakeholder Group on The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions - Further Notice of Inquiry (Docket No. 110207099–1319–02). These comments have the support of a supermajority of the members of the Stakeholder Group.
Respectfully submitted,

Please find attached a response by the Internet Society to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) Further Notice of Inquiry (FNOI) on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions.

Attached please find comments of the Coalition for Online Accountability in response to the FNOI published June 14, 2011. If there are any questions or you need further information, please contact the undersigned.
Steven J. Metalitz
Counsel, Coalition for Online Accountability
www.onlineaccountability.net

Please see the attached comments submitted on behalf of a coalition of several national and international trade associations and labor organizations identified in the attached that represent songwriters, recording artists, music publishers, record labels, and performing rights societies around the world. Regards, Vicky Sheckler

Please accept the following comments in response to the Further Notice of Inquiry regarding IANA functions.1 Go Daddy reserves the right to future comments on this issue and our positions include, but are not necessarily limited to, the text herein.

Overview
As stated in our previous comment2, we are generally satisfied with the current procurement of IANA functions and the incumbent operator. Additionally, because the IANA Functions contract is a critical component of Internet governance, we caution against making sweeping and material changes without careful consideration of their impact on the long-term continuity of IANA functions.

That said, we concur with the conclusions reached by NTIA from the initial NOI and we especially welcome the additional transparency requirements for handling changes to the DNS Root Zone provided in C.2.2.1.3.1

Furthermore, we acknowledge that the proposed Statement of Work (SOW) would be appropriate provided the various elements are properly defined, implemented, and reviewed, for example:

We generally support the requirements for Performance Metrics (C.4) and Audits (C.5), but note that the proposed SOW does not provide examples of penalties or sanctions for Contractor under performance.

We are not clear on the specific Contractor obligations in C.6.3 with regard to ccTLD delegations.

Conclusion
The draft SOW presents a welcomed enhancement in the performance of the IANA Functions Contract, and the relationship between the Contractor, the NTIA and interested stakeholders. There are, however, some areas that require further development of details. We reiterate our recommendation that changes to IANA not be undertaken in a manner that is disruptive or rushed.

Sincerely,
GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Tim Ruiz
Vice President
Corporate Development and Policy
GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Please find attached Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization (LACTLD) comments in response to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) request, for public comments on the IANA functions further notice of inquiry (FNOI) on IANA.

I am writing to provide the comments of the International Trademark Association (INTA) in connection with the NTIA's Further Notice of Inquiry (FNOI) on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority Functions.

Please let me know if there are any questions regarding our submission.

On behalf of the Association of National Advertisers, I am submitting a corrected filing to the IANA Contract Further Notice of Inquiry comment docket (Docket No. 110207099-1319-02). The ANA noticed a few typographical errors in its original filing and submits the attached documents. Please place these documents on the record and remove the ANA's previous filing.

I am pleased to submit comments to the Further Notice of Inquiry on The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions on behalf of the Number Resources Organization, NRO, Attached you will find our contribution.

Please be so kind to find the Statement by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) responding to the questions asked in the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration Further Notice of Inquiry (FNOI), 110207099-1319-02RIN 0660-XA23: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions Further Notice of Inquiry.

These ALAC Comments to the NTIA were discussed during the July meeting of the ALAC and developed from wiki-based draft materials and text that were open to public comment and input until the end of 28 July, before transmission to the NTIA. They will become a 'Statement of the ALAC' when ratified by an online vote of the ALAC during early August 2011. At that time, a courtesy copy of the Statement in the standard format and with the ICANN staff cover page/Introduction, etc. will be forwarded under separate cover to the NTIA for its records and archived in the ICANN/ALAC documents store for future public record and review.

On behalf of the ALAC, I thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on functions as important as IANA's. I remain at your disposal should you need any further explanation on any of our Statement's contents.

Attached please find SportAccord’s submission to NTIA’s Further Notice of Inquiry in connection with the IANA Function. We apologize that this submission is being submitted after the formal closing date but ask that you respectfully take this submission into consideration.